PS IS A LIAR

necessary first step. If you ignore Steiner's
words, you won't understand them.

[Mike:]

This is called an eisegetical interpretation:
reading into the text content that is not there. One reason this
approach seems sound to so many [anti] anthroposophists is that
they believe their own personal understanding of Steiner's work
as a whole sets the standard for all readings."

[PS:]

But that isn't what I believe, obviously.
What I say is that *no* understanding of Steiner's work as a
whole can possibly set the standard for specific readings. Not
mine, not yours, not anybody's. To hold otherwise is to misunderstand
what reading means and what it is for. It is entirely wrongheaded
to try to fit specific passages into a pre-existing notion of
what his work "as a whole" stands for.

<snip>

[Mike:]

did he?

Andrea adds:

P.S. lacks of any knowledge about the studies and development
on Anthroposphical Medicine. BTW the topic "immunology"
is at the core of several of those studies (see f.i. Evans &
Rodger "Anthroposophical Medicine" London 1987)

So while Daniel did not invent anything PS
shows, one more time, what is his "level" of correctness
about the matter!!

What makes you believe, that Andrea actually believes, that
his "own personal understanding of Steiner's work as a whole
sets the standard for all readings."

Because otherwise he couldn't determine what
constitutes "true knowledge" of Steiner's doctrines,
and declare which readings are and are not compatible with anthroposophy
"as a whole", instead of examining the actual text
in question.

[Mike:]

I don't believe that this belief is grounded
in actual fact.

Then maybe you should read Andrea's post
to Diana again. What do you think he was trying to say about
the relation between specific readings of particular Steiner
passages and the ostensible integrated unitary world view that
Anthroposophy is?

Oh well, I've got a "true esegete " of my thoughts,
the one powerful Being able to detect what i was "trying
to say".!!

Peter as you did since the first time you
were on AT you are twisting and misquoting facts and statements,

Let's summarize: Diana was sarcastic about
the fact that Steiner, as a clairvoyant, never talked of "immunology".
I answered remembering about some basic facts on Anthro-medicine
studies, immunology included. Diana faded away ("I've got
no time to discuss") after posting a quite strange statement
about karma that I criticized. So I made also a picture of Anthropos-Sophia
like a symphony, that is something that hurted very much the
Ctuhulhu brains.

Well, listmates, if you confront those facts
with PS's statements you'll get only one answer:

PETER STAUDENMAIER IS A LIAR

Andrea

I think there's a fine line between "critical
thinking" and Cynicism.

Yes, I've noticed that you have a hard
time telling those two things apart. That's precisely why you
find critique so baffling.

Maybe it's because those who utilize anthro
ideas on occasion, like me for instance, don't make sense of
it in the same way that someone else would.

You can say that again.

And why should I?

You shouldn't, if you don't want other
people to take what you say on the topic seriously. But in that
case, it doesn't make sense to moan about how critics of anthroposophy
are constantly misrepresenting Steiner because gosh, that's just
not how you look at Steiner personally.

For someone that claims to be a anarchist,
you seem to adhere to allot of "standards" as to what
constitutes racism, incompetent readers, muddled thinkers and
the like. That surprises me.

It does? Why? Because you think that anarchists
oppose standards?

I think that arrogance and a lack of empathy
is, for the most part, based on ignorance.

That could be. But you haven't explained
why you think it is arrogant and unempathetic to point out the
circular reasoning that you find so compelling. Critique is not
a sign of arrogance. It is a sign of arrogance, on the other
hand, to pretend that you have found some sort of special spiritual
path, and that to really understand the doctrines associated
with this path you have to view it from within, and that people
who view it critically from without are unspiritual and lacking
in empathy.

But not at the core of the Steiner passage that Daniel was talking
about. That passage says nothing about medicine, anthroposophical
or otherwise.

Oh well, I've got a "true esegete " of my thoughts,
the one powerful Being able to detect what i was "trying
to say".!!

That's exegesis, Andrea. The opposite of eisegesis. But exegesis
is frequently mistaken, and if you think I was mistaken in this
case, you are very well positioned to clarify what you were,
in fact, trying to say. Did you not mean that Steiner's critics
lack "true knowledge" of his doctrines?

Peter as you did since the first time you were on AT you are
twisting and misquoting facts and statements

I didn't misquote you. Misquoting and misunderstanding are very
different things. (And lying is something else entirely, by the
way.)

Let's summarize: Diana was sarcastic about the fact that Steiner
,asa clairvoyant, never talked of "immunology". I answered
remembering about some basic facts on Anthro-medicine studies
,immunology included . Diana faded away ("I've got no time
to discuss") after posting a quite strange statement about
karma that I criticized. So I made also a picture of Anthropos-Sophia
like a symphony , that is something that hurted very much the
Ctuhulhu brains.

Except for hurting brains part, that sounds accurate enough so
far. What does this have to do with misquoting, or with lying
for that matter?

Well, listmates, if you confront those
facts with PS's statements you'll get only one answer: PETER
STAUDENMAIER IS A LIAR

What is it you think I lied about? I said
that you think it is impossible to discuss particular aspects
of anthroposophy without a "true knowledge" of the
whole symphony of anthroposophy. I replied that I think this
is obviously flawed reasoning, since it presumes beforehand that
anthroposophy does indeed form a harmonious whole and that particular
aspects of it ought to be read in light of this supposed whole,
rather than the other way around. I encourage you to disagree
with my assessment of this sort of reasoning, but I don't see
why you think I am lying, or why you think I misconstrued your
position. Here, as a handy reminder, is the statement of yours
that I quoted:

Anthroposophy is a"
Symphony" and you can't discuss on and on only a single
note or movement without a true knowledge of the whole!!

If you think I misunderstood you, I invite you to re-state what
you meant. Thanks,

Oh well, I've got a "true esegete
" of my thoughts, the one powerful Being able to detect
what i was "trying to say".!!

P.

That's exegesis, Andrea.

A:

No it's lying LYING about words that i did
not post.

Peter as you did since the first time you
were on AT you are twisting and misquoting facts and statements

P:

I didn't misquote you. Misquoting and misunderstanding
are very different things. (And lying is something else entirely,
by the way.)

A:

What's the problem ? You DID misquote, misunderstand
and lie in the same time.

Let's summarize: Diana was sarcastic about
the fact that Steiner ,asa clairvoyant, never talked of "immunology".
I answered remembering about some basic facts on Anthro-medicine
studies ,immunology included . Diana faded away ("I've got
no time to discuss") after posting a quite strange statement
about karma that I criticized. So I made also a picture of Anthropos-Sophia
like a symphony , that is something that hurted very much the
Ctuhulhu brains.

P:

Except for hurting brains part, that sounds
accurate enough so far. What does this have to do with misquoting,
or with lying for that matter?

A:

Can't you see it ? Your problem, sir. I believe
that the listmates understood everything.

Well, listmates, if you confront those
facts with PS's statements you'll get only one answer: PETER
STAUDENMAIER IS A LIAR

P:

What is it you think I lied about?

A:

See above, pls. (Apart more or less other
235 topics on this list and elsewhere)

Anthroposophy is a"
Symphony" and you can't discuss on and on only a single
note or movement without a true knowledge of the whole!!

P:

If you think I misunderstood you, I invite
you to re-state what you meant. Thanks,

Wrong. The core of the thread was precisely "Indians'
Genocide" BTW caused also by immunological problems.

Yes, that was Daniel's inventive reading of Steiner's sentence
about American Indians dying out. But even Daniel's reading had
nothing to do with anthroposophical medicine. Instead he invoked
mainstream conceptions of "genetic similarity and immune
response", in Daniel's words, and referred us additionally
to the work of Charles Mann and Henry Dobyns, neither of them
anthroposophists.

Daniel? I was answering to Diana's sarcasm.

Yes, and I was answering to Daniel's reading of Steiner's sentence.

See above

I did see above. Steiner's sentence says nothing about medicine.
Really. Take a look at it again. No mention of medicine anywhere,
much less anthroposophical medicine.

No it's lying LYING about words that i did not post.

You did post these words, Andrea: "Anthroposophy is a "Symphony"
and you can't discuss on and on only a single note or movement
without a true knowledge of the whole!!" I am not lying
when I say that you posted these words. If you think I misunderstood
your words, you just need to say so, and perhaps clarify what
you meant.

You DID misquote, misunderstand and lie in the same time.

No, I didn't misquote you. The quote above is exactly what you
wrote.

Your problem, sir. I believe that the listmates understood
everything.

Well, maybe one of them can explain it to me. You wrote the following
words, in a post from 4/23/04: "Anthroposophy is a"
Symphony" and you can't discuss on and on only a single
note or movement without a true knowledge of the whole!!"
That is exactly what I quoted in my post from later the same
day. You can find your
original post here:

Wrong. The core of the thread was precisely
"Indians' Genocide" BTW caused also by immunological
problems.

Yes, that was Daniel's inventive reading
of Steiner's sentence about American Indians dying out. But even
Daniel's reading had nothing to do with anthroposophical medicine.
Instead he invoked mainstream conceptions of "genetic similarity
and immune response", in Daniel's words, and referred us
additionally to the work of Charles Mann and Henry Dobyns, neither
of them anthroposophists.

Daniel, again? With whom are you talking Peter ? BTW Daniel too
grasped the link between the "whole" (the Anthro-things
including medicine) and the single statement.

Daniel? I was answering to Diana's sarcasm.

Yes, and I was answering to Daniel's reading
of Steiner's sentence.

Are you kidding?

See above

I did see above. Steiner's sentence says
nothing about medicine. Really.

Really? The only reality is your lack of knowledge in Anthroposophy,
boy.

Take a look at it again. No mention of medicine anywhere,
much less anthroposophical medicine.

See above again

You did post these words, Andrea: "Anthroposophy is a
"Symphony" and you can't discuss on and on only a single
note or movement without a true knowledge of the whole!!"
I am not lying when I say that you posted these words. If you
think I misunderstood your words, you just need to say so, and
perhaps clarify what you meant.

Uhu!! THE MOUSE IS IN THE TRAP!

What a feeble memory you have !! You posted that "I think
to be the conductor of the Symphony" and the one able to
decide what "true knowldge" is. Can you please tell
the list where did I post these words? You made also poor attempts
to demonstrate that this is "eisegesis", So your are
in a TRAP, stronzo So I claim on and on _

YOU ARE A LIAR.MR STAUDENMAIER!!

You DID misquote, misunderstand and lie
in the same time.

No, I didn't misquote you. The quote above
is exactly what you wrote.

See above, LIAR:

Well, maybe one of them can explain it
to me. You wrote the following words, in a post from 4/23/04:
"Anthroposophy is a" Symphony" and you can't discuss
on and on only a single note or movement without a true knowledge
of the whole!!" That is exactly what I quoted in my post
from later the same day. You can find your
original post here:

Again? what a broken record! See above, Topolino.

YOU ARE A LIAR, MR Staudenmaier .

Well, Peter, since I believe that this could be the last time
that I discuss something with you, (don't believe that you got
something to say about the other open thread between us) I have
the duty to tell you something. When I picture you and others
from WC-PLANS as a "Lovecraftian" image (Ctuhulhu,
Nyarlatothep and so on) I'm actually NOT joking. From a certain
imaginative standpoint that is the way your personality and,
most of all, your ill-minded dialectic gambling looks like !
You will laugh about it (I'm really sorry for you) but since
this is an "Anthro" list I believe that most of the
mates will be able to grasp perfectly what I am saying.

Yes, Daniel again. I'm not sure how you missed this, but my original
post quoted both Diana and you, the quote from Diana referring
to Daniel's inventive reading of Steiner's sentence. Is this
why you think I misquoted you? Did you think I attributed Diana's
words to you? Or maybe Daniel's?

BTW Daniel too grasped the link between the "whole"
(the Anthro-things including medicine) and the single statement.

Yep, that's why I addressed both of you. In my view, you both
made the same mistake of imagining some "whole" that
magically links various concepts together, even when those concepts
do not appear in the text in question.

Are you kidding?

No, I'm not kidding. Could you maybe try reading my post again?
It starts with a quote from Diana about Daniel, and then moves
on to a quote from you. Both quotes are entirely accurate and
unaltered, and each of them is clearly attributed to the proper
author. My post, once
again, is right here:

Really? The only reality is your lack of knowledge in Anthroposophy,
boy.

Yes, this is exactly the claim that I ascribed to you, and criticized,
previously. Why are you upset about supposed misunderstandings,
since you keep repeating the very same claim?

You posted that "I think to be the conductor of the Symphony"

Yes, that is more or less what I posted. Not what you posted,
but what I posted. Get it? That isn't a quote from you, it's
(sort of) a quote from me. Let's try going over my words and
your words one more time, shall we? I wrote: "Because Andrea
mistakes himself for the conductor of the symphony, he thinks
that his own perception of "the whole" determines what
"true knowledge" is." I did not attribute this
claim to you, but to myself. It is my criticism of your claim
that "Anthroposophy is a "Symphony" and you can't
discuss on and on only a single note or movement without a true
knowledge of the whole!!" That latter claim is exactly what
you wrote, and exactly what I quoted. I did not misquote you.
I quoted you accurately, and then criticized your claim.

What a feeble memory you have !! You posted that "I think
to be the conductor of the Symphony" and the one able to
decide what "true knowldge" is. Can you please tell
the list where did I post these words?

You didn't post those words. You posted the words ""Anthroposophy
is a "Symphony" and you can't discuss on and on only
a single note or movement without a true knowledge of the whole!!"
And I posted the words "Because Andrea mistakes himself
for the conductor of the symphony, he thinks that his own perception
of "the whole" determines what "true knowledge"
is." The first quote is you, the second one is me. There
is no misquotation here.

When I picture you and others from WC-PLANS as a "Lovecraftian"
image (Ctuhulhu, Nyarlatothep and so on) I'm actually NOT joking.

Yes, I got that. A number of you seem to live in a fantasy world
populated by demonic forces who are always trying to trip you
up with devious misquotations. I think this helps to explain
why you have such a hard time dealing with external criticism.

that is more or less what I posted. Not what you posted, but
what I posted. Get it? That isn't a quote from you, it's (sort
of) a quote from me

A:

Hi listmates!!

listen to this bright exercise of Jesuitic
intellectual dishonsesty! The Ctuhulhu-head posted a sentence
in which he shows to have "investigated" the "hidden
intention" of a statement of mine and tries to esacpe from
his responsibility playing one of his favourite games.

But let's go on

Ctuhulhu-head adds

Let's try going over my words and your
words one more time, shall we? I wrote: "Because Andrea
mistakes himself for the conductor of the symphony, he thinks
that his own perception of "the whole" determines what
"true knowledge" is." I did not attribute this
claim to you, but to myself. It is my criticism of your claim
that "Anthroposophy is a "Symphony" and you can't
discuss on and on only a single note or movement without a true
knowledge of the whole!!" That latter claim is exactly what
you wrote, and exactly what I quoted. I did not misquote you.
I quoted you accurately, and then criticized your claim.

My answer

No liar, You did not "criticize" You made a different
joke. You made an "esisegis" of my own thinking, trying
to demonstrate that you catched the "hidden meaning"
aka my wish to be a "conductor" of Anthromatters,

I posted a whie ago

What a feeble memory you have !! You posted
that "I think to be the conductor of the Symphony"
and the one able to decide what "true knowldge" is.
Can you please tell the list where did I post these words?

P:

You didn't post those words.

Oh the truth, AT LAST!!

P:

You posted the words ""Anthroposophy is a "Symphony"
and you can't discuss on and on only a single note or movement
without a true knowledge of the whole!!" And I posted the
words "Because Andrea mistakes himself for the conductor
of the symphony, he thinks that his own perception of "the
whole" determines what "true knowledge" is."
The first quote is you, the second one is me. There is no misquotation
here.

A:

No, there is only a guy who pretend to "
know" what another guy "thinks"......

When I picture you and others from WC-PLANS
as a "Lovecraftian" image (Ctuhulhu, Nyarlatothep and
so on) I'm actually NOT joking.

Yes, I got that. A number of you seem to
live in a fantasy world populated by demonic forces who are always
trying to trip you up with devious misquotations. I think this
helps to explain why you have such a hard time dealing with external
criticism.

A Fantasy World?? Respectable opinion, but the Reality has very
little to do with such "opinions".

No, there is only a guy who pretend to " know" what
another guy "thinks"......

Yes, that is exactly right. This is what people do in public
discussions: they try to figure out what other people are thinking
and saying, and then respond with their own thoughts. Since you
can't seem to make up your mind on whether I misquoted you or
not, maybe we can return to the somewhat simpler question of
whether I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that anthroposophy
constitutes a harmonious whole, and that people who lack what
you consider to be true knowledge of this whole cannot make sense
of particular texts by Rudolf Steiner. (I did not, for what it's
worth, think you were saying that you are the conductor of the
anthroposophical movement.) If you do not, in fact, believe that
anthroposophy constitutes a harmonious whole, and that people
who lack what you consider to be true knowledge of this whole
cannot make sense of particular texts by Rudolf Steiner, then
I once again encourage you to tell me what you were trying to
say in the first place. Thanks,

as I wrote our concert is over. But looking
back at the threads I noticed that there's a need of an encore

You wrote:

Yes, that is exactly right. This is what
people do in public discussions: they try to figure out what
other people are thinking and saying, and then respond with their
own thoughts.

I write:

Indeed. But there is the basic necessity to
mantain some credibility avoiding to cross the border of the
pure invention. That is exactly what you have done: pure invention
of a non existing "background thinking" There's also
a matter of "how to say"-as a"master of dialectis"
should have to know,,,-

If you had been writing "It's also possible
to imagine that A. thinks somehow to be the conductor of the
Symphony" it should also have been more difficult to counter,
doesn't it ?